ESPN College Football

The BCS powers that be say no final decisions on a future postseason format will be made this week, but one plan is gaining momentum. Colleague Mark Schlabach reports from the BCS meetings in Hollywood, Fla., that if a four-team playoff is approved, the semifinals and championship game will be played at neutral sites. BCS bowl games also will be played closer to New Year's Day.

Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany and others had advocated for semifinals to play on campus at the home of the top two seeds, but the campus plan hasn't caught on.

From Schlabach's story:

The conference commissioners have reached a conclusion that some FBS schools' stadiums aren't large enough to host a national semifinal game and that many college towns don't have enough hotel rooms to accommodate bigger crowds.

"What happens if TCU finishes No. 2 in the country and hosts a semifinal game?" the source said. "TCU finished No. 3 two years ago. Are they really hosting No. 3 Ohio State in a 45,000-seat stadium? Where are people going to stay if Oregon hosts a semifinal game? In Portland? As much as it would be great for the sport to see a game played in Ann Arbor, Mich., Tuscaloosa, Ala., or Lincoln, Neb., some of the logistical issues are just too severe. I think that idea has come home to roost as far as these guys are concerned."

I love that the commissioners have decided that some college football stadiums can't host college football games. Ridiculous. There aren't enough hotel rooms in the Dallas/Fort Worth metroplex? Portland, by the way, isn't exactly a six-hour drive from Oregon's campus in Eugene. And smaller stadiums create great atmospheres.

The Big Ten, of course, is more equipped to handle major on-campus games than any other conference, as it boasts mammoth stadiums, most of which are located in or near decent-sized cities. Penn State's Beaver Stadium would be the exception. So the likely death of the on-campus plan stings Jim Delany's league.

Also of interest to Big Ten fans, what to do with the Rose Bowl.

Rose Bowl officials repeatedly have said they prefer to keep their traditional matchup between Big Ten and Pac-12 teams; Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany and Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott also favor keeping the traditional tie-in intact. But if the Rose Bowl isn't willing to give up its affiliations with those conferences, it might fall out of a potential national semifinals rotation. However, the Rose Bowl would still be eligible to bid for a national championship game.

It might make sense for the Rose Bowl to stay out of the semifinal rotation but ensure it hosts the championship game more often than not.

Interesting times. Stay tuned.

Another spirited Big Ten chat is in the books. Thanks to all of those who participated.

In case you missed out on the fun, here's a full transcript.

Some highlights:

DuckI from Camp Randall: Adam, It seems like the BIG currently has a lack of a conference identity and less unity than the SEC. How can we get this back when seven of the 12 teams are led by coaches that weren't in the conference two years ago? What will it take for a Badgers fan to again take pride in a Buckeye victory, or a Spartan to be proud of a Hawkeye?

Adam Rittenberg: Less unity? Not sure if I agree. I think most Big Ten fans pull for the league in nonconference matchups and in bowls. Sure, there will always be some fans who don't because of rivalry reasons, etc., but the fans I hear from want the league to succeed. Are Big Ten fans as loud and obnoxious about it as those from the SEC? Not even close. But I don't think it means the league lacks unity.

Hank from Washington, D.C.: Adam--You must win a Big 10 Title before getting a National Championship title! I see nothing wrong with Hoke's mindset.

Adam Rittenberg: Might want to check with Alabama about that :-) But yes, your point is valid. This is an issue I've wondered about not just with Hoke, but throughout the Big Ten. Do enough teams in this league truly strive to be national champions? Because that's how leagues are judged in this environment. And when a playoff arrives, winning the Rose Bowl will mean even less in terms of national perception.

Ryan from Cedar Rapids, Iowa: Hi Adam, How many RB's do you see Iowa using next year? I know it will be by committee, but, how many will be in the rotation? and do you think 1 of them will get to 1000 yards?

Adam Rittenberg: I think Iowa has to go into the season with a committee mindset at RB. If one guy emerges during nonconference play as a featured back, go with him. But I think the Hawkeyes will get both Bullock and Johnson some carries, along with at least one of the freshmen. Garmon is a very intriguing prospect and could be an impact guy right away. So I could see anywhere from 2 to 4 backs in the RB rotation. If one emerges, a 1,000-yard season wouldn't be a shocker.

Steven from Madison, Wis.: Do you think it's possible that Delany threw the 4-plus-Rose game into the mix just to make the rest of the options look better to the other conferences? I love the Rose Bowl, and Delany does too, but we all know that that system would never be ratified.

Adam Rittenberg: Steven, I think he did it to show his loyalty to the Rose Bowl, telling them that he's fighting for them even though both parties know they're not winning this one. I also think he could be using it as leverage to advocate for more realistic options, such as having semifinal games on campus, something Delany and Pac-12 commish Larry Scott both want.

Thanks again for chiming in, and my apologies to those whose questions weren't answered. Let's do it again next week.

The fourth and final option for determining college football's national champion in future years was labeled "Four Teams Plus" in an outline obtained earlier this month by USA Today.

It should be called the Delany-Scott plan.

The option calls for the Rose Bowl to remain an integral part of determining the national champion.

The four highest-ranked teams at the end of the regular season would meet in semifinals unless the Big Ten or Pac-12 champion, or both, were among the top four. Those leagues' teams still would meet in the Rose, and the next highest-ranked team or teams would slide into the semis. The national championship finalists would be selected after those three games.

There's little doubt that Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany and Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott are behind this option. The fact that it remains in the final four choices underscores the influence both men (Delany more so than Scott) have in the room.

But the plan was greeted, understandably, with skepticism, even by Big Ten fans who read this blog.

Not surprisingly, the power brokers in the SEC -- the league that loves to remind everyone it has captured the past six national titles -- don't like the plan, either. University of Georgia president Michael Adams told The Wall Street Journal earlier this month, "This is not 1950, or 1960. There are great schools in the [Atlantic Coast Conference] and the Southeastern Conference and the Big 12. I think it's time to put everybody on an equal footing. I just reject the notion that the Big Ten and the Pac-12 ought to be treated differently in this process."

SEC commissioner Mike Slive agrees. Speaking today to a group of sports editors in Birmingham, Ala., Slive said of the pro-Rose Bowl proposal, "It's not one of my favorites." He said it doesn't help simplify the postseason.

This might stun my pals Chris Low and Edward Aschoff, but Slive is absolutely right.

The "Four Teams Plus" option makes very little sense to begin with, and absolutely no sense for the other major conferences. They could have a team win a "semifinal" game and still not reach the championship because of what happens in Pasadena. What do they tell that team? Thanks for playing?

While Delany and Scott are stumping for the Rose Bowl, an event they genuinely adore, the other commissioners would be doing a disservice to their constituents by letting the plan go through.

Some will paint this as Delany vs. Slive, who represent the nation's two most popular and profitable conferences. But there are others involved, and in this case, Delany is outnumbered.

You have to wonder whether Delany and Scott really think the "Four Teams Plus" plan has a chance of being selected, or whether they're using it to reiterate their loyalty to the Rose Bowl, while advocating for a more realistic option, like having semifinal games on campus.

The next BCS meetings take place April 24-26 in Hollywood, Fla.

Even when the Big Ten reads the tea leaves and sees a college football playoff is inevitable, the league, along with its partner, the Pac-12, still finds a way to tick off most of the country.

Not surprisingly, the most-discussed element of the BCS postseason options proposal obtained by USA Today is the option to expand the national semifinals to accommodate the traditional Big Ten/Pac-12 matchup in the Rose Bowl. In case you missed it, here's how the plan would work:

In the latter plan, the four highest-ranked teams at the end of the regular season would meet in semifinals unless the Big Ten or Pac-12 champion, or both, were among the top four. Those leagues' teams still would meet in the Rose, and the next highest-ranked team or teams would slide into the semis. The national championship finalists would be selected after those three games.

Ugh. So you'd have six teams vying for two spots. And some kind of selection committee would determine which of the winners of the "semifinal" wouldn't make the national championship game.

The Rose Bowl is my favorite event on the college football calendar. I've only covered two of them, but if you put me in Pasadena every Jan. 1 for the next 30 years, you'd hear no complaints. Still, this plan seems borderline ridiculous.

And it has Jim Delany's fingerprints all over it. Delany and his Pac-12 counterpart, Larry Scott, don't want to see the Rose Bowl diminished in any way. But as Nebraska athletic director Tom Osborne told me and others have stated, any playoff system will hurt the bowls, including the Rose. Still, fans want a playoff.

The Rose Bowl thing brings up an interesting debate, one I discussed Wednesday during a radio interview in Omaha. One of the hosts, Dirk Chatelain (he of Omaha World-Herald fame), asked whether the Big Ten's Rose Bowl love has gone too far and whether there's a disconnect between the traditionalists who run the league and the fans. Chatelain mentioned that a new generation of Big Ten fans, who grew up during the BCS era and the playoff push, might be less tied to the Rose Bowl.

Take Ohio State fans, for example. They've watched their Buckeyes dominate the Big Ten during the BCS era but have seen them only in one Rose Bowl since the span (2010 Rose Bowl). Meanwhile, the Buckeyes have played in three national title games.

Do Big Ten fans value the Rose Bowl enough to make it an integral component of the national playoff plan? Would the potential devaluing of the Rose Bowl with an alternate and, most likely, more sensible playoff plan be too much to give up?

Here's your chance to weigh in. You can also send me your views here (please include which Big Ten teams you root for).

Every Big Ten administrator who has commented on the league's four-team playoff proposal also has made sure to acknowledge the Rose Bowl in the same breath.

"The Rose Bowl is extremely important to Michigan State just as it is to every school in the Big Ten and Pac-12," Michigan State athletic director Mark Hollis told the Associated Press.

"Any talk of a limited playoff needs to keep the tradition of the Rose Bowl and the bowl system in play," Iowa AD Gary Barta wrote to the Des Moines Register in an email.

"My concern -- first and foremost -- is maintaining our relationship with the Rose Bowl," Wisconsin AD Barry Alvarez wrote in his monthly letter to fans.

Perhaps there's some little-known Big Ten bylaw requiring league officials and administrators to pay homage to the Rose Bowl whenever discussing the future of college football. Commissioner Jim Delany always makes a point to acknowledge the Rose Bowl as the league's most important external relationship.

Kevin Ash, the Rose Bowl's chief administrative officer, enjoys hearing this from one of the game's conference partners. He hopes the pledges continue, as the Rose Bowl needs both the Big Ten and Pac-12 to be in its corner.

One of the big questions with any playoff model is how it would impact the current bowls, including the Rose. Would the Rose Bowl remain a premier sporting event on New Year's Day, or would the game start seeing drops in attendance and ratings like some of the other major bowls?

The Big Ten plan would remove the top four teams from the BCS bowl pool and have semifinal games played on the college campus of the higher seed. The championship game then could be bid out, like the Super Bowl.

The Rose Bowl's fate largely rests with Delany and his Pac-12 counterpart Larry Scott.

"We rely on them heavily to lead on our behalf, because we don't sit at the table with them," Ash told ESPN.com on Thursday. "We're not an active party. We know they have our best interest at heart, and we're a huge part of who they are in the postseason."

Like many, Ash senses the momentum building toward a college football playoff. He understands that the next BCS cycle, beginning in 2014, could bring changes for the Rose Bowl.

"It's going to be interesting to see some of the proposals," he said. "There could be variations that could be OK for the Rose Bowl game. If the commissioners feel we need to move in a different direction, which is best for college football, we've got to be a part of that."

The desire to maintain the traditional Big Ten-Pac-12 Rose Bowl matchup has been viewed as one of the primary impediments to a college football playoff.

Like the Big Ten and, to a lesser extent, the Pac-12, the Rose Bowl has been viewed as an obstruction to a college football playoff. Although the game has loosened its access rules and has had teams from other leagues, most recently TCU in the 2011 game, the desire always has been to have the Big Ten champion face the Pac-12 champion on Jan. 1 in Pasadena, Calif.

Any type of playoff format would decrease the likelihood of having both league champions in the game.

"Whatever system they decide to put forward, we will deal with the access issue as it applies to us, and we will embrace any visitor that comes to our game," Ash said. "But each year, we hope to have a Pac-12 and Big Ten champion playing for the Rose Bowl championship. Simple as that. Does it hurt us to have other teams in here? No. But we're traditionalists. It's a part of who we are."

Some see the Rose Bowl's traditionalist nature as being inflexible. The Big Ten, and, to a lesser extent, the Pac-12, have been viewed this way as well.

Ash said it's not the case.

"Since the BCS, we've learned to evolve, and we still have our tradition," Ash said. "Tradition is a two-sided sword. If you sit on tradition, then you can get left behind, but if you are careful about how you move forward, then you can keep that tradition going. There's possibilities out there, models that can be successful for us. We've got to see what plays out."

And follow Delany's and Scott's lead.

"They're very, very intelligent guys, and their leadership is amazing," Ash said. "We need to evolve in order to stay relevant. I think those are the guys who can take us there.

"They're going to protect us as best they can."

Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany and Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott just finished a conference call with reporters. Here are some notes and nuggets from that call:

Both commissioners acknowledged that adding a difficult nonconference game against BCS opponents could create an impediment to their teams reaching the BCS title game. That's especially a concern in the Pac-12, which is pledging for now to keep its nine-game league schedule. But both say the benefits outweigh the risks.

"It seems counter-intuitive to make it tougher to make a bowl game, to make it tougher in the current BCS construct to go undefeated and get to the national championship game," Scott said. "In a time where there's an intrinsic pressure to kind of dumb down interconference schedules, here we are kind of reinvesting in regular-season college football and getting higher-caliber, tougher competition.

"But I think in our conference -- and the Big Ten feels the same way -- it's a broader, more holistic view about the benefits of a high-quality regular-season schedule. It's not just about how easy can you make it to qualify for a bowl and make the BCS championship game."

I asked Delany if this would make it harder for Big Ten teams to get to the national title game.

"I think it probably does," he said. "[But] in an overall, holistic way, I think it helps our football programs. I think it will engage fans, help our recruiting, help in the presentation of television. If fans follow it, our partners will be rewarded and we will ultimately be rewarded.

"We all agreed that the 12th game was kind of a 'buy game' too often for our conference and a game that was not as compelling maybe as we would like. This is a step that's for the fan, for the player and for recruitment. Clearly, for coaches used to having four [nonconference] home games, it makes it more challenging. But that's just one aspect."

Much remains to be ironed out on which teams will play whom. But Delany said he'd like "to have competitive equity play a significant part" in determining the matchups. Which raises the possibility, if two strong teams meet in the regular season, that they could have a rematch in the Rose Bowl. Would that water down the Rose Bowl?

"It's obviously a possibility," Scott said. "We do have to set these schedules somewhat in advance, and I don't think you can perfectly calibrate or choreograph matchups. I would underscore, however, that these games would be taking place early in the season. In the unlikely but possible scenario where a rematch would occur, it would be a rematch from right at the beginning of the season, not at the end of the season."

Of course, the Big Ten already does an interconference dance with the ACC in basketball. Would the Pac-12/Big Ten football games get treated like the Big Ten/ACC challenge? Delany said they would be different in that the matchups would likely occur over three-to-four weeks, not in a couple of days like the basketball challenge.

"Whether or not it's branded that way, I think people will measure and count," Delany said. "That's the nature of competition."

Delany said the Rose Bowl is the only thing that's really sacrosanct between the two leagues, and everything else right now is "a blank canvass." The two conferences can come up with all kinds of creative events, mini-tournaments, whatever. Delany called it "not a five-year or 10-year deal, but an indefinite collaboration."

Some of the creative events could take place at NFL stadiums or at the Rose Bowl, in and out of the leagues' footprints. Delany mentioned Yankee Stadium, Atlanta and Texas as possibilities for some neutral-site games. But he said the majority of the football contests would likely be held on campuses.

Both Scott and Delany said this was not the first step toward any kind of real merger between the leagues. And Delany said don't look for similar collaborations between the Big Ten and other conferences.

"We have a common DNA but a tremendous recognition that 90 percent, 80 percent of what we do is in our region," he said. "Those who think regional rivalries and local rivalries don't mean anything any more, I think that's erroneous. It's wonderful if you can have that and this. Our goal is to build something new here on a very strong foundation of history."

Some questions and answers before our first weekend without Big Ten football since August (tear).

Jay from Litchfield, Minn., writes: Adam,After Minnesota's near upset of USC at the beginning of the year, a lot of us, including you, thought with Jerry Kill they were good enough to pull some upsets against Big Ten foes. Then after the first three conference games a lot of us, again including you, didn't think they would ever win another game for the year. It was nice to see at least some progress and the victory over the Hawkeyes was sweet (especially if you have in-laws from Iowa!). Combined with the victory over a reeling Illinois team (and a close one at East Lansing), were these the games you were thinking they could pull off?Also, since Coach Kill doesn't have a bowl game to prepare for, this allows him time for recruiting. What kind of things does he say to kids and their families to get them to come to Minnesota?Thanks,Jay

Adam Rittenberg: Jay, I think Kill sells the fact that Minnesota is building something, and that players can come in and be a part of a turnaround. He also could use the prospect -- not the guarantee -- of early playing time as a selling point. Both of the Gophers' Big Ten wins surprised me, but Minnesota certainly finished on a good note against Illinois, even though the Illini were in free fall by that point. I have little doubt Minnesota will be a solid offensive football team in 2012. MarQueis Gray will have another year in the system, and he'll be surrounded by some good weapons. The big key going forward is the defense, which made some strides late in the season but loses its more productive players.

---

Brian from Fleming Island, Fla., writes: Hey Adam, love the blog. As a lifelong PSU fan who fondly remembers the days prior to PSU having sold their souls for inclusion into the cash cow that is the Big Ten, what do you think are the chances that PSU jumps ship to the ACC? Geographically and culturally, we have much closer ties to the east coast than the midwest, especially now that Pitt and Syracuse are there. If the ACC could pull off a two-fer and grab both PSU and Notre Dame in one fell-swoop, wouldn't the ACC be the new IT conference in college football, and wouldn't PSU want to be a part of that?

Adam Rittenberg: Brian, you're not alone in this sentiment, and I know some Penn Staters feel like they never were accepted by the Big Ten. Thursday's statement by the Big Ten presidents and chancellors likely reinforced the perception. But Penn State would be leaving a lot of money on the table, and the Big Ten in my view always will have more prestige than the ACC. The ACC is directly in the SEC's shadow and repeatedly falls short in its head-to-head matchups with the SEC. The Big Ten is a little more removed, in a different part of the country. While Penn State and Notre Dame would add prestige to the ACC, you're still talking about a league that has a lot to prove on the national stage. I maintain Penn State would get more mileage out of becoming a dominant Big Ten program, consistently beating the likes of Ohio State, Michigan, Nebraska, Wisconsin and others, and making Rose Bowls. The ACC seems like the easy way out.

---

David from Chicago writes: As expected, Michigan got a BCS bid while the loser of the Big Ten championship game (MSU) did not. If Wisconsin had lost the championship game, the same thing would have happened to the Badgers. So here's my question: Unless there are national championship implications, who wants to go to the Big Ten championship game? Assuming the Big Ten gets two BCS bids in a given year, one will go to the winner of the championship game while the runner up will get passed over for another team. I would much rather be the third best team in the conference than one of the two teams playing for the conference championship because the team with the best odds of making a BCS game is the highest rated team that doesn't play in the championship. And the benefits (exposure, etc.) from playing in a BCS game far outweigh those of playing in Indianapolis. Isn't there something fundamentally wrong with that system?

Adam Rittenberg: David, you bring up some great points. I would add, though, that there will be some seasons where the Big Ten title game loser earns an at-large berth. If Michigan State or Wisconsin entered the game at 11-1 rather than 10-2, I could see the loser earning an at-large berth, depending on the year, the national landscape and the bowls doing the selecting. But yes, for the most part, you're right. Losing a league title game usually takes a team out of the BCS at-large mix. It's not fair, but then again, BCS at-large berths have never been about fairness. They've been about fan bases, program prestige, the location of the bowl games and other factors that have nothing to do with how good a team has played.

---

Sam from New York writes: Hey Adam! Great blog! I'm a huge Badger fan and just read that Montee Ball will most likely jump to the NFL if he's projected to be a 1st or 2nd rounder, but will stay in Madison if he's projected to go later than that. Just wondering, where do Kiper and McShay have them on their boards? What are they saying about him? Selfishly, I'd like to see him play his final year in Madison but completely understand him jumping early, especially since he's an RB. Also, since Peter Konz missed the last few games, do you think he'll still jump to the NFL?

Adam Rittenberg: Neither Todd McShay nor Mel Kiper has Ball or Konz projected in the first round of the draft. Kiper has Ball as the nation's No. 5 junior running back and Konz as the nation's No. 1 junior center. Both men certainly could make the jump, particularly Ball because of the position he plays. Ball also loves life at Wisconsin and could try to better his stock with one more season as a Heisman Trophy candidate. My sense is Ball will go and Konz will stay, but we'll see.

---

Don from Vancouver writes: I am reading a lot about the "plus one" game. Where is a good explanation of how it would work? What would be your top 3 reasons it would work or be a bad idea?

Adam Rittenberg: First off, Don, I LOVE your city. Awesome place. I'm in favor of a plus-one because it would keep the bowls involved and set up a playoff situation to determine a national champion. There are different plus-one models, but the one I like is to have the Cotton Bowl designated as the fifth BCS bowl and have two bowls designated each year to host national semifinals on a rotation. How would the four national semifinalists be determined? I'm in favor of a selection committee, which would eliminated the ridiculous polls we now use. While this could mess up the Big Ten-Pac-12 pairing in the Rose Bowl from time to time, I also think the traditional matchup could be accommodated as much as possible. You then would have a national title game one week after the BCS bowls.

---

Joe from Columbus, Ohio, writes: Keep up the great coverage! Wondering where you think the root of BIG bias stems from? Obviously Ohio state embarrassed itself in championship twice and we havent succeeded into our difficult bowl lineup. That seems to be a major factor, though other conferences typically dont show up in main BCS bowls (see ACC, Big East, Oklahoma, Oregon lately). The BIG gets bashed more regularly than worse conferences. I think it may stem from the fact that we are a bit pompous and expectations are for us to be great and this top threat to stop the SEC, but obviously we have not. Plus bashing the Big East and ACC would be like hitting your little sister? It ain't right. Your thoughts?

Adam Rittenberg: Joe, I think you have a good handle on why the Big Ten bashing takes place. There's a perception that the Big Ten is an arrogant conference living off the past that hasn't been a national factor nearly enough in the past 10-15 years. And looking at the recent BCS bowl results and national championships, it's hard to argue that point. The Big Ten also is viewed as a roadblock to a college football playoff, in large part because of commissioner Jim Delany's opposition. Delany has done a lot of good things for the league and has grown the Big Ten brand throughout his tenure, but he doesn't win over the national media like, say, Pac-12 commish Larry Scott. The Big Ten always will be relevant because of the schools and the massive alumni/fan bases. But until the Big Ten starts to win some national championships, it will be seen as a popular conference but not a very good one on the field.

Let's get to your comments and questions. Two more mailblogs coming later this week: Brian on Thursday and yours truly on Friday.

As Bill Raftery would say, send it in!

Craig from Braintree, Mass., writes: I loved seeing Ivan's article on city based college's. A couple comments: 1) I was disappointed to not see Minnesota on the list of attendees at the conference. 2) One of the differences mentioned in the article between college fans and pro fans was the importance of winning. Your thoughts?

Adam Rittenberg: Craig, I agree on your first point. Minnesota could have benefited from attending a conference like the Big City Marketing Summit. Northwestern overhauled its marketing strategy last year and the results have been good. ... As to your second point, you refer to this quote from Houston senior associate athletic director Darren Dunn: "The score matters a lot more here than the pro teams. I think college fans are more passionate about wins and losses than pro fans are." It's somewhat up for debate as some college teams will sell out their stadiums and arenas regardless of the record. But Dunn has a point about certain pro teams, especially NFL squads, maintaining a stranglehold on markets even when they're struggling. The best example could be the Washington Redskins, who continue to dominate talk in the Beltway despite years and years of failing to meet expectations. The Cleveland Browns still matter in Cleveland when they're terrible, but teams like Minnesota and Northwestern can fade away during down periods. So he has a point.

---

Kris from Lincoln, Neb., writes: First, I love the coverage that everyone gets on the B1G Ten blog. It's refreshing to see all the teams have a family-like status among each other.My question is in regards to the trophies and the Huskers. Where do we start with getting Nebraska into the trophy tradition? Obviously, Nebraska/Iowa would be the starting point (please, nothing corn related), but what about making the Land Grant Trophy Nebraska/Penn State instead of MSU/Penn State? Would there be a huge backlash? What about Michigan or Minnesota? Any chance of seeing two or three trophy games each year for Husker Nation?

Adam Rittenberg: Great question, Kris, and one we'll definitely explore as Nebraska settles in as a Big Ten member. One question to ask is whether a trophy should come before a true rivalry is established. While I have little doubt Iowa-Nebraska will be an intense rivalry, should we see how it goes the first few meetings before creating a trophy, or does it merit one now? Same with Nebraska-Michigan State, Nebraska-Michigan, etc. I highly doubt we'll see the Land Grant Trophy resurface for another game (thankfully), but there is the potential to have rivalry trophies for several games involving Nebraska. I would just be cautious not to force a rivalry. The best rivalries happen organically.

---

Josh from Tempe, Ariz., writes: Hi, I grew up in Michigan and have loved the Big 10 my whole life. I have been attending a Pac 12 university the last 3 years and have been paying attention to what new commissioner Larry Scott has done in his less than 2 year tenure. He has signed the biggest tv deal for a conference, added 2 teams in Utah and Colorado making it eligible for a championship game that is hosted at the site of the team with the better record to keep teams motivated, given a name that actually reflects the number of teams in the conference, the logo was voted on by fans, the divisions are geographical so they make sense, and when people complained about the notoriously bad officiating he canned the whole staff and hired entirely new officials with new training. Also pending the NFL lockout Scott is seriously considering playing games on sundays and mondays. Jim Delany in the past year has rebranded by introducing Terrible and embarrasing division names (something like 90% disapproval), an overly simplistic logo, retained the name when in fact there are actually 12 teams, is reluctant (but moving in the direction) to play night games, and only considered 2 cities for a permanent championship. Do you think Delany has grown out of touch with the fans?

Adam Rittenberg: Let me first say Larry Scott is doing a fabulous job as Pac-12 commissioner. As some of you know, I grew up in Pac-12 (then Pac-10) country and watched the league suffer because of leadership that was woefully out of touch. Scott has done wonders in a short period to make the Pac-12 more nationally relevant. And I do hope the Big Ten pays attention to some of the ideas Scott has implemented, especially from a marketing perspective. That said, let's not sell Jim Delany short. I know he's not overly popular among media and some Big Ten fans, but he has made the league a ton of money and implemented some ideas that have changed college sports, namely the introduction of the Big Ten Network. From instant replay to the Big Ten Network to the recent expansion, Delany deserves a good deal of credit for growing the Big Ten brand. And unlike the Pac-10, which really needed a boost, the Big Ten is already nationally relevant. To be fair, Delany was open to changing the league name but the presidents, who ultimately make the call, wanted to keep the traditional title (a good decision in my view). Delany hasn't had the best few months after Legends and Leaders and the Ohio State scandal, but let's keep his career in perspective.

---

Dan from Dallas writes: Hey, Adam, a while back you wrote an article called "Should Big Ten open season at Rose Bowl?" in which the idea of the Big Ten and PAC 10 kicking off each season against each other was being thrown about. I'm wondering if there has been any further discussion about this. You point out that it might not be a great deal for the B1G, if there isn't a return game. Might this be a great opportunity to get Chicago-Soldier Field into the mix, considering it missed out on the inaugural B1G Championship? There should be no ill-weather concerns in early September in Chicago. What do you think?

Adam Rittenberg: Dan, I haven't heard anything lately, but I'll follow up and see if it's an idea the Big Ten would ever consider. Again, I don't know how beneficial it would be to play Pac-12 teams in their backyard without return games. Soldier Field will host a Big Ten team this fall as Wisconsin plays Northern Illinois in Week 3, but I think it's important for the venue to host additional college games in the coming years before potentially bidding on the Big Ten championship game after 2015.

---

Dave from West Palm Beach, Fla., writes: Adam, as a PSU fan and recent grad, I have many friends who go (or went) to pitt. We have been going back and forth for the last few years on who the better team is, who the better school is, and who parties harder (obviously, Penn State).I don't understand why Penn State fans have mixed feelings about this rivalry being renewed. Would they rather play a team like Syracuse year in and year out? Or maybe they want to play more teams like Indiana State? Who knows, but I think this is a good team to have on the schedule overall. Penn State hates that school in columbus, and the one in ann arbor, but the feeling doesn't seem as mutual. They prefer to hate each other more than us. It's nice to have the hate go both ways for once. Your thoughts?

Adam Rittenberg: Dave, I'm with you on this. Penn State-Pitt used to be a great rivalry and has the potential to be a great one again. I think the concern isn't so much Penn State losing games with Syracuse or Indiana State, but Penn State being less willing to schedule a series with teams like Alabama. You know the way most teams from automatic-qualifying conferences approach nonconference scheduling. It's typically one game against an opponent from a AQ league, maybe two. So if Penn State were to play Pitt every year, it would be less inclined to schedule other teams from AQ leagues.

---

Charles from Phoenix writes: Welcome back Adam - In looking at the "position rankings" for the SEC, I've been seeing Auburn in the bottom half more often than not while the Badgers are looking solid: do you think this will effect Russell Wilsons decision on where (if) to play college ball and if so does Wisconsin have the edge?

Adam Rittenberg: Charles, while I'm sure Wilson wants to win wherever he goes, the fact that both teams lose starting quarterbacks is the biggest factor for him. The offensive schemes the teams run also could sway him one way or the other. Wisconsin will enter the fall ranked higher than Auburn, and some will label the Badgers as Big Ten favorites, but the Tigers are coming off of a national championship. Still, I think if Wilson picks football over baseball, he'll be a Badger.

---

Dennis from Airville, Pa., writes: Hey, Adam. Several weeks ago, you posted an answer to the question of whether or not Ohio State has a special deal with any TV network or its own network. You said you would check into it and let us know. So far, there has been no answer. It's called follow-through. What is the final answer? Let us know, please (I've got 25 cents riding on the answer).

Adam Rittenberg: Dennis, I did in fact follow up with Ohio State athletic director Gene Smith at the Big Ten spring meetings. You might have missed the post, but here's what Smith had to say: "We've really bought into the overall health of the conglomerate. ... How do we optimize all of our assets, how do we aggregate it and maximize everything for everybody? We've kind of got a little bit different philosophy from the Big 12, because they share revenue differently, they're philosophically different. That's understandable, it works for them. But for us, we like to aggregate things and see how we can rise the whole ship." Bottom line: no Ohio State network, at least for now.

Jai Ho, everyone.

• Pac-10 commissioner Larry Scott disses the Big Ten Network, Richard Sandomir and Ken Belson write in The New York Times.
• Ohio State's compliance staff is making sure players understand the consequences of interacting with agents, Doug Lesmerises writes in The Columbus Dispatch. Buckeyes coach Jim Tressel's talent search keeps taking him to Toledo, Matt Markey writes in The Blade.
• Wisconsin athletic director Barry Alvarez includes his school and Iowa among the Big Ten's big brands, annarbor.com's Dave Birkett writes. Alvarez also thinks the Big Ten could expand again -- to the East, Mark Snyder writes in the Detroit Free Press.
• Former Michigan head coach Lloyd Carr is excited about his impending retirement, Josh Katzenstein writes in The Detroit News. The Wolverines add a 2011 recruit in linebacker Kellen Jones.
• After summer workouts, Wisconsin players are geared up for preseason camp, Tom Mulhern writes in the Wisconsin State Journal. Badgers star John Clay is recovering well from two offseason ankle surgeries, Jeff Potrykus writes in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
• Penn State's first-round draft pick Jared Odrick has signed with the Miami Dolphins, Pat Huggins writes in the Lebanon Daily News.
• Former Michigan State coach George Perles thinks both the Spartans and Michigan will improve in 2010, Snyder writes in the Freep.
• Some good nuggets on Minnesota's scheduling situation from the Star Tribune's Phil Miller.
• Northwestern's 2011 recruiting class is shaping up well, Teddy Greenstein writes in the Chicago Tribune.
• The Ohio State game once again will be Iowa's most important test in 2010, Jordan Garretson writes in The Daily Iowan.

Here in Big Ten country, we've grown up believing that the Rose Bowl is different from all other bowls. It's special. It's in a class of its own.

There's no shortage of reasons why: longevity, history, tradition, pageantry. Heisman Trophy winners and Hall of Fame coaches. Unforgettable plays and finishes.

Or, you can simply watch the sun set over the San Gabriel Mountains during the second half of a Rose Bowl game. That's all the evidence I need.

The Rose Bowl also has stood out from the other bowls because of its ties to both the Big Ten and the Pac-10. The relationships with the bowl tick off fans from other parts of the country as well as some media members, but they're treasured by the two leagues.

As the 2010 football season dawns, it's important to remind everyone that access to the Rose Bowl is changing during the next BCS cycle (2010-2013 seasons). Beginning this fall, the first time the Rose Bowl loses the Big Ten champ or Pac-10 champ to the BCS title game, it must take a team from a non-automatic qualifying conference if that team earns a BCS berth. This can only happen once during the BCS cycle, but it's likely.

Ready for TCU-Iowa in the Granddaddy? What about Boise State-Oregon State?

"The commissioners felt like if the other bowls are in position every year to have non-AQ team, the Rose Bowl should be in a similar position," BCS executive director Bill Hancock said. "The Big Ten, Rose Bowl and Pac-10 agreed, ‘We need to share.'"

Sharing the Rose Bowl? Somewhere, Bo and Woody might be shaking their heads. But that's the way it goes these days.

Scott McKibben hadn't taken his post as executive director of the Tournament of Roses committee when the access change took place, but he backs the new policy.

"If we believe in the bowl system and the BCS and where that all is headed for our future, we really felt like we needed to participate in that also," McKibben told me this week. "It allows an opportunity for a team that might not in a typical year [be selected] to come to the Rose Bowl. Our feeling is, ‘Hey, if it’s good for college football and good for the bowl system, we certainly want to support it.'"

Was there any resistance, specifically from the Big Ten?

Hancock never saw any in a public forum. McKibben said commissioners Jim Delany (Big Ten) or Larry Scott (Pac-10) haven't brought up the access change during McKibben's nine months on the job.

We might only find out how the leagues really feel the first time a non-BCS team heads to Pasadena. This much seems clear: the days of the Big Ten nudging a 9-3 Illinois team ranked 13th in the final BCS standings toward Pasadena might be over.

At least for this BCS cycle.

“College football is an ongoing evaluation process, as we learned," McKibben said. "Do I feel this is probably something that will go on into the future? I would say yes. But do we know for sure? No. We’ll know more after we finish the [current] cycle and we sit in a room and talk about it."

The Big Ten has been viewed as the catalyst for expansion in college sports since Dec. 15, when the league issued a statement that put expansion on the front burner.

For the past five months and change, everyone has reacted to Jim Delany and his league.

But Thursday, the spotlight shifted to two other conferences, the Big 12 and the Pac-10. A Rivals.com report that stated the Pac-10 would extend invitations to six Big 12 teams, including Texas and Oklahoma, turned the college sports world on its head.

Big 12 commissioner Dan Beebe and Texas president Bill Powers canceled a news conference Thursday at the league's spring meetings, and Oklahoma athletic director Joe Castiglione indicated that the unity Beebe wanted to achieve among the institutions this week has not yet been reached. It's really hard to believe the Big 12 is one big happy family right now.

Colleague David Ubben writes:

A unified front and clear consensus would have made answering questions a reasonably simple exercise for two men with backgrounds in law. But that front never materialized on Thursday, leading to the postponement of Powers' and Beebe's comments until late Friday morning. And the reports about the Pac-10's shockingly proactive move -- which sounds far closer to a possibility than a probability -- obviously contributed to that delay.

The Pac-10 tried to put the brakes on things, saying no offers have been extended, and while I highly doubt anything is imminent, Colorado AD Mike Bohn said the report has some legs.

Needless to say, today could be critical for the Big 12, which wraps up its meetings in Kansas City.

What does this all mean for the Big Ten? Is Delany going to get upstaged by a rookie commissioner in Larry Scott?

I'd reiterate that nothing is definite, and the six-team expansion sounds a lot like a best-case situation for the Pac-10. Not saying it can't happen, but much like the Big Ten's expansion study, this will take more time.

Still, Delany and the Big Ten brass can't turn a blind eye to what's happening in Kansas City or what will happen at the Pac-10 meetings, beginning this weekend in San Francisco. The Big Ten presidents and chancellors meet Sunday at league headquarters -- I'll be there -- and you can bet they'll be talking about what has taken place.

Losing Texas to another league would disappoint Big Ten fans, but for Texas, it might make sense. The Big Ten already has its own TV network. It already has established powerhouse programs. The Pac-10's pitch to Texas could be, "Let's build something new together," and Texas could get some of the special concessions from the Pac-10 that I'm told it won't get from the Big Ten.

Aside from Texas, the other schools mentioned in the report aren't Big Ten targets. I'm told the league is more interested in Big 12 North members, specifically Nebraska and Missouri.

The expansion process is nowhere near an end, and things are heating up.

It looks like the Big Ten will stick to its original timetable for the expansion study, 12-18 months. But commissioner Jim Delany addresses reporters today at BCS meetings, so it'll be interesting to see what he has to say.

• Pac-10 blogger Ted Miller is at BCS meetings all week -- follow him here -- and he recaps the expansion buzz of Day 1. Pac-10 commissioner Larry Scott, by the way, doesn't see an urgent need for his league to expand, Miller writes.
• Everyone else is waiting to see what the Big Ten does, SI.com's Andy Staples writes.
• Penn State president Graham Spanier says you'll keep waiting because nothing is imminent, Dave Curtis writes in The Sporting News.
• SI.com's Stewart Mandel has a good look at frequently asked questions about possible Big Ten expansion.
• There's a slight leader in Illinois' quarterback race, and it's redshirt freshman Nathan Scheelhaase, Shannon Ryan writes in the Chicago Tribune.
• Purdue adds junior college safety Max Charlot to help its revamped secondary this fall, Mike Carmin writes in The (Lafayette) Journal and Courier.
• DeLeon Eskridge and Duane Bennett are still competing for a starting job at Minnesota, but both backs look improved this spring, Kent Youngblood writes in the Star Tribune.
• Bryan Bulaga is the latest promising offensive lineman to come out of Iowa, Dan Pompei writes in the Chicago Tribune. Iowa is on the board for 2011 recruiting, and the team addresses a need at wide receiver, Andy Hamilton writes in the Iowa City Press-Citizen. Iowa has named its leadership group for 2010.
• Michigan's spring game helped its recruiting efforts, Josh Helmholdt writes in the Detroit Free Press. The problems continue for former Wolverines cornerback Boubacar Cissoko.
• Indiana football players pay an important visit to a children's hospital in Indy, Dustin Dopirak writes in The (Bloomington) Herald-Times.

As we all know by now, NCAA bylaws state that in order to hold a championship game in football, a conference must have 12 members.

So for the Big Ten to hold its title game in Indianapolis, Detroit, Chicago or Sheboygan, a 12th member must be added.

But rules change all the time, and many of us have wondered whether a league could simply hold a championship game without expanding to 12 teams or more.

New Pac-10 commissioner Larry Scott is thinking the same way.

Scott tells CBSsports.com's Dennis Dodd that he has had discussions with Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany and Big East commish John Marinatto about holding championship games without expanding to 12 or more. The prospect obviously would interest the Big Ten (11 members) and the Big East (eight members).

"That's a possibility," Scott said. "Initially, it doesn't make much sense but I've had a couple of conversations."

Dodd goes on to write: "NCAA bylaw 17.9.5.2 (c) states that a conference must have at least 12 members to stage a championship game. NCAA legislation would be needed to change that bylaw. Supposedly, such a change would be non-controversial."

Hmmm, very interesting.

Delany has stated multiple times that a football championship game won't be the driving force behind expansion, but it's obviously a big factor to many folks involved in the process. As I've repeatedly reminded blog readers, the Big Ten is healthy at 11 teams, but it could be even stronger if the right addition or additions are made.

If the Big Ten can't land a slam-dunk expansion candidate (Notre Dame), and the requirements changed for a football championship game, this might make a lot of sense for the league. Of course, the lack of a round-robin schedule in the Big Ten makes things tricky. The top two teams in the league could take very different paths to a championship game.

Still, it's interesting to see that we aren't the only ones thinking about alternative ways to have a title game.